JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge. This judgment shall dispose of RSA No.318 of 2000 and Cross Objections No.536 of 2000. The second appeal has been directed against judgment, decree dated 01.04.2000 passed by District Judge, Shimla, in Civil Appeal No.65-S/13 of 1998, affirming judgment, decree dated 30.03.1998 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.2, Shimla, in Case No.42/1 of 1997/89. The respondents have filed cross objections in the appeal. The parties in the judgment are referred as plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff has filed the second appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was joint owner in possession to the extent of 5/16th share in the land situate at Bhadoni, Jabog, Khanet, Rehal Baichari Chaks, more specifically described in the plaint. The gift made by Smt. Tulsi in favour of defendants was illegal, null and void and of no consequence over the rights of plaintiff. The further case of the plaintiff is that Mahantu and Garbu two brothers had land in six villages namely Bhadoni, Jabog, Khanet, Rehal Baichari, Shilbagi and Chanan. In the year 1960 Bikrami partition took place between two brothers as a result of which the land situated in villages Bhadoni, Jabog, Khanet, Rehal Baichari fell to the share of Mahantu predecessor of the parties. 3. Mahantu had two sons Tolu and Ram Dayal. Tolu had two sons Med Ram and Chet Ram. Plaintiff Paras Ram is one of the sons of Med Ram. Ram Dayal the other son of Mahantu had a son namely Tulsi Ram. The defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Tulsi Ram. 4. Chet Ram the brother of Med Ram died issueless. He had two widows Tulsi and Battu. Chet Ram died in 1953, a few months after his death one of his widows namely Battu remarried. She contracted ‘Kareva’ marriage with Gian Chand. Chet Ram had 1/4th share in the suit land and on his death his share was inherited by his two widows Tulsi and Battu in equal shares. Thus, each widow of Chet Ram inherited 1/8th share. 5. In the year 1964, Battu made a gift in respect of the share inherited by her from Chet Ram in favour of plaintiff Paras Ram. Thus, each widow of Chet Ram inherited 1/8th share. 5. In the year 1964, Battu made a gift in respect of the share inherited by her from Chet Ram in favour of plaintiff Paras Ram. On the death of Med Ram father of plaintiff, his 1/4th share was inherited by his two sons Paras Ram and Asha Ram, widow Phullu and daughter Sodhu. In other words, each heir of Med Ram including plaintiff inherited 1/16th share in suit property of Med Ram. 6. Phullu and Sodhu made gifts in respect of their 1/16th share each in favour of plaintiff. In this way, plaintiff became joint owner in possession to the extent of 1/16th share inherited by him from his father directly plus 1/16th share gifted by his mother Phullu plus 1/16th share gifted by his sister Sodhu and 1/8th share gifted by Battu, total 5/16th share. 7. After gift by Battu in favour of plaintiff, Tulsi other widow of Chet Ram got the entries in revenue record changed showing that Battu’s 1/8th share in property had reverted to her on account of her having remarried. Tulsi made gift in respect of her 1/8th share in favour of defendants 1, 2, but the latter started claiming that they had been gifted by Tulsi 1/4th share. The plaintiff alleged that Tulsi had only 1/8th share in the suit property and question of her gifting 1/4th share did not arise. He alleged that 1/8th share of Battu did not revert to Tulsi and hence she was not competent to make gift in favour of defendants No.1 to 3 in excess of 1/8th share. The plaint was amended and defendants No.4 to 15 were impleaded. 8. The defendants 1 to 3 contested the suit by filing joint written statement. They raised preliminary objections of maintainability. They alleged that Tulsi was the only widow of Chet Ram and she had inherited 1/4th share of Chet Ram exclusively. She had gifted half share in their favour and she executed Will of remaining half share in favour of male issues of defendants 1 to 3. The objections of estoppel, locus-standi, limitation, valuation and jurisdiction were also taken. 9. On merits, defendants 1 to 3 admitted partition between Mahantu and his brother Garbu and suit land had fallen to the share of Mahantu. It was admitted that Mahantu had two sons Tolu and Ram Dayal. The objections of estoppel, locus-standi, limitation, valuation and jurisdiction were also taken. 9. On merits, defendants 1 to 3 admitted partition between Mahantu and his brother Garbu and suit land had fallen to the share of Mahantu. It was admitted that Mahantu had two sons Tolu and Ram Dayal. Tolu had two sons Med Ram and Chet Ram. Ram Dayal had a son Tulsi Ram. Chet Ram died issueless. Chet Ram had two widows, on his death his property was inherited by his two widows in equal shares. Battu one of his two widows remarried in the year 1954, on remarriage the share inherited by her from Chet Ram reverted to Tulsi other widow. Tulsi became joint owner to the extent of 1/4th share which was once held by Chet Ram. The defendants 1 to 3 are sons of Tulsi Ram and had inherited his half share in the suit property. 10. The claim of the plaintiff that 1/4th share of Med Ram was inherited by him, his brother Asha Ram, mother Phullu and sister Sodhu, was challenged. Med Ram had another daughter Lachhu, who pre-deceased him. Lachhu had sons and daughters. The sons and daughters of Lachhu had also inherited 1/4th share of Med Ram along with plaintiff and other heirs of Med Ram i.e. his widow Phullu, daughter Sodhu and second son Asha Ram. The suit was bad for non-joinder of sons and daughters of Lachhu. The sons and daughters of Lachhu had also inherited 1/5th share out of 1/4th share of Med Ram in the suit land, the plaintiff could not claim that he had become joint owner of 3/4th portion of 1/4th share, once held by his father Med Ram. 11. The defendants 4 to 15 took preliminary objections similar to those raised by defendants 1 to 3. On merits, they took almost similar pleas as taken by defendants 1 to 3. They claimed that 1/8th share in total suit land had been bequeathed to them by Tulsi and 1/4th share had been gifted to defendants 1 to 3. 12. The plaintiff filed separate replications to both sets of written statements of defendants 1 to 3 and 4 to 15. In the replication to the written statement of defendants 1 to 3, plaintiff admitted that Battu had contracted ‘Kareva’ marriage after the death of Chet Ram. 12. The plaintiff filed separate replications to both sets of written statements of defendants 1 to 3 and 4 to 15. In the replication to the written statement of defendants 1 to 3, plaintiff admitted that Battu had contracted ‘Kareva’ marriage after the death of Chet Ram. It was alleged that Battu could not have forfeited the property which she had already inherited on the death of Chet Ram on account of her remarriage. Battu continued to be the owner of 1/4th share in the suit property even after the remarriage and gifted that share to plaintiff through registered gift deed in the year 1964. 13. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of 5/16 share of the suit land? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act, deed and conduct from filing the suit? OPD. 5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 6. Whether the suit is not properly valued? If so, what is the correct value? OPD. 7. Relief. The issues 1 to 4 and 6 were answered in negative, issue No.5 in affirmative and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court on 30.03.1998. The plaintiff filed appeal which has been dismissed by District Judge on 01.04.2000, hence second appeal by plaintiff which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the courts below are justified in dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for declaration and joint possession in view of the admitted fact relating to the joint ownership of the parties and especially in view of the fact that only the shares have been disputed by the respondent/defendants? 2. Whether the 1st Appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit after having held the suit to be within limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 5/16th share in the suit property or any other share? 14. The defendants have filed cross objections in the appeal and the cross objections have been admitted on following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the learned District Judge has wrongly held that suit is within limitation? 15. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 5/16th share in the suit property or any other share? 14. The defendants have filed cross objections in the appeal and the cross objections have been admitted on following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the learned District Judge has wrongly held that suit is within limitation? 15. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in the appeal and cross objections and have also gone through the record. On behalf of the plaintiff, it has been submitted that rights of the parties were determined in the judgment dated 16.09.1974 Ex.PW1/A in RSA No.74 of 1969 in which Battu and Tulsi widows of Chet Ram were parties. The Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856, (for short ‘1856 Act’) was not applicable in PEPSU STATE of which the area in dispute was a part at the relevant time. Ex.DW1/B dated 13.08.1954 stating ‘kareva’ of Battu with Gian Chand is inadmissible in evidence and has been wrongly relied by the Courts below. The gift Ex.PW2/5 dated 05.11.1964 was executed by Battu after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ‘1956 Act’). The restricted right of Battu had enlarged into full ownership under Section 14 of 1956 Act. The defendants have failed to prove remarriage of Battu before coming into force of 1956 Act. The mutation No.100 dated 20.11.1964 could not supersede registered gift Ex.PW2/5 to which presumption of truth is attached. The District Judge has not considered the effect of gift deed Ex.PW2/6 dated 22.01.1974. Tulsi had no right to execute gift Ex.DW1/A dated 10.02.1966 in excess of what she had inherited from Chet Ram. The plaintiff admittedly is a joint owner in the land in dispute even as per the case of the defendants and defendants have only disputed the extent of share of plaintiff in the suit land. The District Judge has erred in not granting decree of joint possession to the plaintiff after holding that the suit is within limitation. It has been ultimately submitted that plaintiff has 5/16th share in the suit property. 16. Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, has submitted that District Judge has erred in holding that suit is within limitation. He has submitted that suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred. The findings recorded by District Judge are based upon appreciation of evidence. In second appeal, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. 16. Mr. B.S. Attri, Advocate, has submitted that District Judge has erred in holding that suit is within limitation. He has submitted that suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly time barred. The findings recorded by District Judge are based upon appreciation of evidence. In second appeal, re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. Battu widow of Chet Ram remarried with Gian Chand before coming into force of 1956 Act. The 1856 Act was very much applicable in the area at the relevant time, even under general Hindu law before coming into force of 1956 Act, a Hindu widow would forfeit her right in the estate inherited by her from her husband on her remarriage. On the date of execution of gift Ex.PW2/5, Battu had no right in the property inherited by her from her husband Chet Ram. Therefore, gift of the property vide Ex.PW2/5 which came to Battu from her husband Chet Ram after his death is illegal. He has submitted that ‘kareva’ of Battu with Gian Chand has been proved. The mutation of ‘Akhrajnama’ is also legal. He has submitted for acceptance of cross objections and dismissal of the appeal. 17. The substantial question of law No.3 in appeal is taken first for consideration. Ex. PW1/A is the certified copy of judgment dated 16.09.1974 in RSA No.74 of 1969. Ex.PW1/C is the certified copy of decree in RSA No.74 of 1969. Tulsi and Balu (sic Battu) widows of Chet Ram have been shown appellants No.15 and 16 in Ex.PW1/C. The suit out of which RSA No.74 of 1969 had arisen was filed by Med Ram for declaration. He put up the case that a family partition had taken place in the year 1960 BK. The vendors of sale deed dated 27.11.1964 had no right or title because they were not the owners of the land, as such sale deed dated 27.11.1964 was not binding on him and was ineffective to the extent of his share in four villages. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but in appeal District Judge held that partition was proved and vendors could not sell any land from four villages to vendees. It was held that sale deed dated 27.11.1964 did not transfer any right or title of the plaintiff therein. The District Judge decreed the suit and the High Court in RSA No.74 of 1969 affirmed the decision of District Judge. 18. It was held that sale deed dated 27.11.1964 did not transfer any right or title of the plaintiff therein. The District Judge decreed the suit and the High Court in RSA No.74 of 1969 affirmed the decision of District Judge. 18. It has been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff that Tulsi and Battu were parties in RSA No.74 of 1969. Battu was shown widow of Chet Ram in the judgment dated 16.09.1974. It was not the case of anybody that Battu had no right in the property inherited by her from her husband Chet Ram on his death. It has been contended that now it is too late for the defendants to contend that Battu had forfeited her right in the property inherited by her from her husband Chet Ram on account of her remarriage with Gian Chand before commencement of 1956 Act. In judgment dated 16.09.1974, the question of forfeiture of right of Battu in the property inherited by her from her husband was not considered. In that case the question was the effect of sale deed dated 27.11.1964 over the share of Med Ram. It was held by District Judge that sale dated 27.11.1964 does not affect right, title of Med Ram over his share. Thus, plaintiff cannot take judgment dated 16.09.1974 Ex.PW1/A as a shield in the present case against defendants to the question whether Battu had any right to execute gift Ex.PW2/5 of property which came to her from her husband Chet Ram. 19. There is no dispute that Tulsi and Battu were widows of Chet Ram. As per rapat No.21 dated 20.09.1953 Ex.DW3/A Chet Ram died six months prior to the report. It means Chet Ram died around March, 1953, leaving behind Tulsi and Battu widows. It is the case of the plaintiff that restricted right of Battu in the property inherited by her from her husband on account of his death enlarged into full ownership under Section 14 of 1956 Act and, therefore, Battu had full right to execute gift deed Ex.PW2/5 dated 05.11.1964. The 1956 Act came into force in the year 1956. DW-1 Hari Dass, Registration Clerk, has placed on record ‘karevanama’ dated 13.08.1954 Ex.DW1/B. This document was objected on the ground of late production. DW-1 denied that ‘karevanama’ was not registered. The 1956 Act came into force in the year 1956. DW-1 Hari Dass, Registration Clerk, has placed on record ‘karevanama’ dated 13.08.1954 Ex.DW1/B. This document was objected on the ground of late production. DW-1 denied that ‘karevanama’ was not registered. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that ‘karevanama’ Ex.DW1/B is inadmissible in evidence for want of proof. The admissibility of Ex.DW1/B on the ground of proof was not objected when Ex.DW1/B was admitted in evidence. Ex.DW1/B was objected only on the ground of late production. Ex.DW1/B is the copy of registered document coming from official record. 20. The plaintiff in the replication to the written statement of defendants 1 to 3 has admitted ‘kareva’ of Battu with Gian Chand. In mutation No.100 Ex.D-16 dated 20.11.1964 reference of statement of Tulsi has been given according to which Battu performed ‘kareva’ 12-13 years ago. As per ‘karevanama’ Ex.DW1/B dated 13.08.1954 Battu performed ‘kareva’ with Gian Chand. It has been, thus, proved that Battu after the death of her husband Chet Ram performed ‘kareva’ marriage with Gian Chand before coming into force of 1956 Act. The Section 2 of 1856 Act provides that all rights and interests which a widow may have in the property of her deceased husband shall cease upon her remarriage. 21. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff that 1856 Act was not applicable in PEPSU STATE area where the suit land was situated at the relevant time. The District Judge has recorded a finding that suit property was part of PEPSU STATE and, therefore, was part of merged State within the meaning of definition of Section 2(a) and, therefore, 1856 Act was applicable in view of Section 3 of the Merged States (Laws) Act, 1949, read with schedule thereto. This finding of District Judge has been assailed unsuccessfully by the plaintiff. Assuming 1856 Act was not applicable, still under the old Hindu Law the position regarding forfeiture on remarriage of a widow was the same as provided in 1856 Act. 22. In Ram Swaroop and another versus Smt. Mahendru and others 1997 (2) SLC 14, Mahomed Umar and another v. Mt. Man Koer & others, AIR 1918 Calcutta 609, has been noticed and it has been held:- “21. The High Court of Calcutta in Mahomed Umar and another v. Mt. 22. In Ram Swaroop and another versus Smt. Mahendru and others 1997 (2) SLC 14, Mahomed Umar and another v. Mt. Man Koer & others, AIR 1918 Calcutta 609, has been noticed and it has been held:- “21. The High Court of Calcutta in Mahomed Umar and another v. Mt. Man Koer and others, AIR 1918 Cal 609, has held that a Hindu widow on her remarriage, although such remarriage is permissible and legal according to the custom of the caste to which she belongs, forfeits her interest in the property allotted to her by a family arrangement and it would make no difference in her position whether section 2 of the Hindu Widows’ Remarriage Act, 1856 does or does not apply to her case since that section has not introduced any change in the Hindu Law so far as it relates to the forfeiture of widow’s interest on her remarriage.” 23. On remarriage of Battu with Gian Chand before coming into force of 1956 Act, she forfeited her right in the property which she inherited from her husband Chet Ram. In these circumstances, Battu had no title over the property which came to her from her husband Chet Ram when she gifted said property to plaintiff on 05.11.1964 vide Ex.PW2/5 nor plaintiff acquired any title over property through gift deed dated 05.11.1964 Ex.PW2/5. 24. It has been contended that Assistant Collector erred in attesting mutation of ‘Akhrajnama’ ignoring gift deed Ex.PW2/5. It has been submitted that presumption was attached to the registered document which could not be nullified by attesting mutation of ‘Akhrajnama’. The gift deed Ex.PW2/5 was not set aside by competent Court, therefore, at the time of mutation of ‘Akhrajnama’ Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to nullify the effect of gift deed Ex.PW2/5. This contention has no force. The gift deed Ex.PW2/5 did not convey any title to the donee inasmuch as donor had no title over the property which she allegedly conveyed to the donee vide Ex.PW2/5. Therefore, no fault can be found with the mutation of ‘Akhrajnama’. 25. The trial Court has noticed gift deed Ex.PW2/6 executed by Phullu and Sodhu in favour of plaintiff. The trial Court has held that as far as the question of another gift deed is concerned, the same was disputed as the exact share depends on the share which was in dispute between Tulsi and Battu. 25. The trial Court has noticed gift deed Ex.PW2/6 executed by Phullu and Sodhu in favour of plaintiff. The trial Court has held that as far as the question of another gift deed is concerned, the same was disputed as the exact share depends on the share which was in dispute between Tulsi and Battu. It was held that plaintiff was not entitled to the share which he had claimed through another gift deed, but while giving these reasons, the trial Court had not specifically referred to gift deed Ex.PW2/6. As per Ex.PW2/6 dated 22.01.1974, Sodhu and Phullu had executed gift deed in favour of Paras Ram. The plaintiff in his statement has admitted that name of his father was Med Ram, his mother was Phullu, brother was Asha Ram and sisters Sodhu and Lachhu. The estate of his father was inherited by five. In case share of Mahantu predecessor of plaintiff is taken as one unit then his sons Ram Dayal and Tolu inherited 1/2 share each. Chet Ram and Med Ram sons of Tolu would inherit 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4 each. Phullu, Paras Ram (plaintiff), Asha Ram, Sodhu, Lachhu or her heirs would inherit 1/4 x 1/5= 1/20 share each. Sodhu and Phullu thus could gift their 1/20th share each to plaintiff vide Ex.PW2/6 which they inherited from Med Ram. The plaintiff is thus having 1/20 + 1/20 + 1/20= 3/20 share out of the share coming to him from Mahantu common ancestor. The will or gift of Tulsi in favour of defendants has no bearing over the share of plaintiff coming to the plaintiff from common ancestor Mahantu. The substantial question of law No.3 is held accordingly in the light of discussions made above. 26. The substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 in the appeal and substantial question of law No.1 in the cross objections are taken up collectively for determination. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the defendants that the District Judge has erred in holding that suit is within limitation. He has submitted that plaintiff came to know about the dispute in the year 1964 and in 1965 Collector, Kandaghat, advised plaintiff to approach Civil Court, but plaintiff filed the suit on 16.05.1989 which is hopelessly time barred. 27. The plaintiff in the plaint has pleaded that he came to know incorrect revenue entries in the year 1987. He has submitted that plaintiff came to know about the dispute in the year 1964 and in 1965 Collector, Kandaghat, advised plaintiff to approach Civil Court, but plaintiff filed the suit on 16.05.1989 which is hopelessly time barred. 27. The plaintiff in the plaint has pleaded that he came to know incorrect revenue entries in the year 1987. The revenue entries had affected the right, title and interest of the plaintiff in the suit land. It has been pleaded that cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff in the year 1987. In Daya Singh and another versus Gurdev Singh (dead) by LRs and others (2010) 2 SCC 194 , it has been observed that cause of action for purposes of Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, accrues only when the right asserted in the suit is infringed or there is atleast a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right. Therefore, the mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records cannot give rise to cause of action. 28. In Shiam Singh and others versus Chaman Lal and others 2011 (2) SLC 1, it has been held as follows:- “13. Coming to substantial question of law No.4, a reading of Section 46 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act shows that if any person considers himself aggrieved as to any right of which he is in possession by an entry in a record-of-rights or in a periodical record, he may institute a suit for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 14. It is well settled that for a suit for declaration, referred to in Section 46, limitation begins to run not from the date of the entry affecting the right of the person concerned, but from the date when he feels aggrieved by the entry and it is the satisfaction of such person as to when does he feel aggrieved. Defendant cannot be heard to say that he (the plaintiff) felt aggrieved by the entry at some earlier point of time or when the entry was actually made.” 29. The observation of Collector, Kandaghat, in order dated 17.05.1965 Ex.D-1 requiring the plaintiff to approach Civil Court is advisory in nature. In view of pleaded case of the plaintiff, the cause of action accrued to plaintiff in the year 1987. The observation of Collector, Kandaghat, in order dated 17.05.1965 Ex.D-1 requiring the plaintiff to approach Civil Court is advisory in nature. In view of pleaded case of the plaintiff, the cause of action accrued to plaintiff in the year 1987. The suit was filed on 16.05.1989 and, therefore, the suit was within limitation. The District Judge has rightly held the suit to be within limitation. The substantial question of law No.1 of cross objections is decided against the respondents/objectors. 30. The plaintiff has prayed declaration that he is owner in possession to the extent of 5/16th share in the suit land, gift Ex.DW1/A dated 10.02.1966 executed by Tulsi in favour of some of the defendants is null and void to the extent of half share with consequential relief of joint possession. The defendants have not denied joint possession of plaintiff in the suit land, the defendants have disputed the extent of share of plaintiff as claimed by him. On remarriage of Battu with Gian Chand before the commencement of 1956 Act, the share of Battu inherited by her from her husband Chet Ram reverted to Tulsi co-widow of Chet Ram and thus Tulsi became full owner of the share of Chet Ram. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with gift deed Ex.DW1/A dated 10.02.1966 executed by Tulsi. It has been held above that plaintiff has 3/20th share in the suit land by treating the share of Mahantu common ancestor as one unit and to this extent the Courts below have erred in not allowing the claim of the plaintiff, hence impugned judgment, decree are liable to be partly set aside. The substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 in second appeal are decided accordingly. 31. In view of above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment, decree dated 01.04.2000 passed by District Judge, Shimla, in Civil Appeal No.65-S/13 of 1998, affirming judgment, decree dated 30.03.1998 passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Court No.2, Shimla, in Case No.42/1 of 1997/89, are set aside. The plaintiff-appellant is held joint owner in possession of suit land to the extent of 3/20th share by treating the share of Mahantu common ancestor as one unit. The cross objections are dismissed. No costs.